The big question is... if it the investment even pays off.
With a basic 1939 medium chassis with a close support gun that costs 16.2 IC, classifying it as a tank and using it in a 15 tank + 5 mot division costs 12837.5 IC, whereas classifying it as an SPG and using it in a 10 SPG + 5 mot division costs 6519.5 IC. The tank version has 50% SA and 50% more breakthrough than the SPG version, but costs basically twice as much. Using 4 spg divisions saves 25272 IC over 4 tank divisions, which is enough to instead make over 1100 CAS. With that sort of tradeoff, I'd say it's well beyond the realm of "reasonable people could disagree". Having 4 "good enough" SPG divisions + 1100 CAS is just way, WAY stronger than 4 "great" tank divisions with how nutty planes are right now. In fact, I think a better case could be made for not making any armored units at all and just going all-in on planes with maybe some mot or 50% discount mech divisions to support them. It depends on how much you value shock divisions I guess.
Outside resource shortages I don't see regular tanks having any sort of niche, at least against the AI.
This. Thiiiiis. This is what I'm getting at. I know people are thinking I'm talking about the singular meta, or even the combat meta; I'm not.
This is an economy game with a side of combat.
You're not JUST building nothing but tanks in your military; You're building infantry, trucks, cookies, cannons, planes, and now trains on top of it. You don't have infinite mils, not until late game at least, so the question, the real meta, is 'How many mils do I need?' How many mils do I need to pump out 1 a day, or 2, or 15? DO I need to put mils on this? Are my mils better spent on something else?
This is why I bring up Arts; Yes, arts are not a breakthrough unit. They're also not alone in a unit either.
But for SA, there are only two real options: Art and tanks. Infantry doesn't do good SA until late game and with the right buffs on them. So, art and tanks.
If both do the same amount of SA, and that's the factor you're looking at, which is better? The unit that costs 4 IC/1 mil to make, or the one that costs 12ic/3 mils to make?
Reman hit it on the head; If you switch the units around and change it so that you have the same in the one value you want, in this case SA, while needing less, that means you can take those mils off to put on something more useful, like planes which are currently the strongest damage dealer. So now apply that to something like Art as well, which again, you need to research anyway to upgrade the tanks, can be buffed multiple ways, including cheesy ways, to have the same or more SA as a SPA while still costing 30% or less of what a SPA or tank would. That's 2 to 6 mils that can be taken off tank production, and put literally anywhere else.
And I already here it coming; breakthrough, armor, hardness-- Yes they're lower by themselves. All of the above need Mot and Mech regardless due to org anyway; Mech can now be upgraded to be comparable to light tanks or medium tanks late game. Breakthrough and hardness is covered by Mech; Armor is meaningless in multiplayer due to the existence of Hart and TDs with super pen. Remember, you only need one, and maybe a support, and that's enough to beat anything that isn't a HT in armor.
What are you all on about? tanks are amazing!
Did teh german civil war yesterday and used my 2 litle tonk devisiosn to great effect, got screwed by the AI so i got locked out of big parts of my focus tree (THANKS FRANCE)
Tried again today and i won even faster by making more use of those 2 tank devisions you get to have.
The Ai is currently broken; They didn't hook up the new AI that understands that supply hubs are a thing correctly, so they're getting their asses handed to them on the supply side. They're building infrastructure thinking it'll fix the fact their railways have been destroyed and aren't switching hub modes. You basically walked over them because they're banging their head against a wall XD
Bottom line: You can't use the old meta and expect it to work like it used to. Experiment, play, figure out what works and what doesn't, and why. Also, terrain may have more influence than previously.
I think the targeting changes have had some very interesting effects. I have had good success with a range of templates from 12 to 25, as long as I could supply and equip them, and mixing them hasn't bothered horribly, either.
One is that if you do actually end up with a mismatch, like an actual 3 on 1 fight, where there's no rescue or support for the 1, they're in trouble very quickly. I've seen org bites of 3 to 4 a day at times in those situations.
Also, the 'worried about' small-div spam meta? No, I've seen too many small units just get plowed under by bigger units.
Still, you can't just take your old 'invincible' 40 wide tank division, aim at the line and let it go, expecting automatic victory anymore.
That's the point of this whole thread though....To figure out the new meta. The question, broadly, is 'are tanks even apart of the new meta?' and the answer is a bit mixed. Normal tanks seem to be a hard no, they are not. TD has some potential, but isn't a cure all, SPA is a specialist now, but by and large tanks as a concept are not prime anymore.
Also, I'd like to point out: The combat hasn't changed. No, it really hasn't; They just changed a few buffs/maluses in regard to terrain and weather, added in options for dealing with forts, and an untested supply system. Combat hasn't changed, the map hasn't changed, no units besides the tanks have changed.....It's still the same combat it was before the DLC. It's about the same when one character gets a rework in a game, and everything else is the same or just slightly changed; Still the same game, just one step to the left or right.
Thus, the meta hasn't changed, just the pieces you use to achieve that meta have.
Quick answer is: It's you.
Just because it cost more does not make it bad or worse. That is the whole premise of your argument which is a fallacy in argument.
Worse would be if it cost more and they preformed worse. In regard to performance they are just as good and probably better IF you design your tank units properly.
And remember the cost for you might be higher but then so is the cost for everyone else.
Except....that they are worse...
If we compare to pre-DLC, tanks were just flat better. Fixed cost, that was lower; higher stats across the board; consistent fuel usage; Required one tech to build. There isn't even a question there: pre-nsb tanks are numerically and effectually better.
Before, I could build a Light tank that got upto 29 SA before bonuses, only lost 4 kph, and still cost 10 ic. Conversely, a H.SPA could get upto 100+ SA before bonuses with a fixed cost.
Now? There are no Light, heavy, or medium in regards to those; All of them share the same weapons. All have the same hard cap on any given stat. The only difference between the weights now is starting cost, some armor, speed in regards to heavies, and what turret you can use. You're not going to see anything above ib 60 sa and breakthrough.
Putting it aside, We've already pointed out that the cost isn't a fallacy, it's the whole point. If you're wasting production on a unit that is effectually worse than other options available, then you're in a worse position. It'd be the same as saying 'It's not worse to build just units of SPAA, you're just doing it wrong' when literally anything else is available. Again, The option is build tanks, or build SPA, Art, Mech AND build Cas; Which is the better option in terms of smashing the enemy line?
